[tei-council] <licence>

[Lou Burnard]

On 22/08/11 15:24, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> On 2011-08-22 15:08, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> what would the content model of<availability>   be?
>>
>>     1.  (licence+ | p+)
>>     2.  p*,licence*
>>     3.  model.availabilityPart+
>>
>> (where model.availabilityPart includes p and licence).
>>
>> I'd tend to vote for 3.
>
> What in practical terms is the different between 2. and 3.? That it is
> more generalizable, repurposable and extendable in the future? Or only
> that 2. would allow an empty<availability>  while 3. wouldn't? (Oh wait,
> in 2. wouldn't that mean any<p>s always have to be before all<license>s?)
>
>
>

2 allows nothing, and requires that any paras must precede any licences

3 equires at least one para or one licence (or anything else that gets 
put into the class in the future)


my vote is for 3, assuming we've now finally decided that licence is not 
pLike.